i'll throw a couple formative pennies into the ring... perhaps clueless ones at that...An artist has to interpret what he sees in a landscape or a model and put it on canvas - "art"

A landscape photographer doesn't have to do anything but capture and record a landscape at the right time and place. Only if he puts his interpretation of the image into the output does it become "art". Otherwise it is just a snapshot.

A fashion photographer has to inject his vision of the model into the capture to give a "look" to the image - "art"

i'll throw a couple formative pennies into the ring... perhaps clueless ones at that...An artist has to interpret what he sees in a landscape or a model and put it on canvas - "art"

A landscape photographer doesn't have to do anything but capture and record a landscape at the right time and place. Only if he puts his interpretation of the image into the output does it become "art". Otherwise it is just a snapshot.

A fashion photographer has to inject his vision of the model into the capture to give a "look" to the image - "art"

A landscape photographer doesn't have to do anything but capture and record a landscape at the right time and place. Only if he puts his interpretation of the image into the output does it become "art". Otherwise it is just a snapshot.

I like your summary, but there are a couple of things I think I disagree with.

1. Isn't just about all landscape photography interpretation? There's no given perspective or take on things, so even when we pick up a camera and make a snapshot, we've gone between what was there and the final outcome. 10 people given the same subject are likely to come up with different pictures of it; each picture is a different interpretation of that thing, however small the differences between the pictures.

2. Interpretation doesn't usually lead to what we call art, does it? We interpret stuff all the time, but we don't tend to call that making art. You're interpreting what I'm writing right now, as I understand it.

I like your summary, but there are a couple of things I think I disagree with.

1. Isn't just about all landscape photography interpretation? There's no given perspective or take on things, so even when we pick up a camera and make a snapshot, we've gone between what was there and the final outcome. 10 people given the same subject are likely to come up with different pictures of it; each picture is a different interpretation of that thing, however small the differences between the pictures.

2. Interpretation doesn't usually lead to what we call art, does it? We interpret stuff all the time, but we don't tend to call that making art. You're interpreting what I'm writing right now, as I understand it.

Chris, the flaw in your argument is this: what you describe is not interpretation. It is, at best, editing.

Chris, the flaw in your argument is this: what you describe is not interpretation. It is, at best, editing.

Rob - are you saying that when you decide to point a camera at a particular view, decide on the angle of view, how the light should be, ISO/ grain, the moment at which to press the shutter, DoF, presence or otherwise of people, and all the other stuff that we take into account when constructing a photograph, that is no more than editing? Is there really no interpretation of the scene taking place? It seems to me that it's primarily interpretation of what is given in experience, leading to an image, and that editing is part of that process.

Maybe it comes down to how we define 'interpretation'. To my understanding, it means something like the process of mediating between one thing (in this case, the land) and another (the viewer of the final image).

Chris,What i hear you describing is the technical side of making an image. Sure, there is interpretation. i think my original words were a little to vague. The painter and the fashion shooter are projecting their vision during the event. What i am suggesting is " art" is the vision that the photographer has to tell us about some part of life. If that doesn't come across when i view the image, there's no communication, no "art". i can make a technically "perfect image" , a pretty picture, but i'll be darned if i can make "art" yet.Mona Lisa says it all.

Yes, I think you're right - when photography functions as art, one of the things it can do is to tell us about our 'being' and about us as human beings. ('Is' is third person singular of 'to be', of course.)

Rob - are you saying that when you decide to point a camera at a particular view, decide on the angle of view, how the light should be, ISO/ grain, the moment at which to press the shutter, DoF, presence or otherwise of people, and all the other stuff that we take into account when constructing a photograph, that is no more than editing? Is there really no interpretation of the scene taking place? It seems to me that it's primarily interpretation of what is given in experience, leading to an image, and that editing is part of that process.

Maybe it comes down to how we define 'interpretation'. To my understanding, it means something like the process of mediating between one thing (in this case, the land) and another (the viewer of the final image).

Sorry, Chris, just found this updated thread again.

Yes, I think you stated my feeling correctly. The technical aspects you mention are a given, as for any sort of photography; hanging about waiting for the light isn't making it happen, I think the still life shooter in his studio is far more creative than the hottest guy in the desert or up the mountains, in the jungle or under the sea. The guy in the still life studio starts with the proverbial blank sheet of paper. Without his input, nada; nothing existed before he took action. The same holds with people photography: you both have to do something creative to make the picture happen.

The 'mediating' you describe sounds awfully similar to editing to me... selecting the bit of what's already there that the viewer gets to see. Manipulation of the image after exposure isn't really creative stuff - it's just technical tweaking which is a decision that's close to creativity but not, for me, the same thing at all. Would you call a great car tuner creative?

...hanging about waiting for the light isn't making it happen, I think the still life shooter in his studio is far more creative than the hottest guy in the desert or up the mountains, in the jungle or under the sea. The guy in the still life studio starts with the proverbial blank sheet of paper. Without his input, nada; nothing existed before he took action. The same holds with people photography: you both have to do something creative to make the picture happen.

Wow, Rob, that's rather insulting. Do you really think that landscape photography is simply sitting around waiting for the light to change? That the success of John Sexton or Michael Kenna or Charles Cramer is due to solely to their patience? Or that all I do is head of into the nether regions and....wait? Really?

I can argue those working in the studio actually have it easier than those of us working in the field. A studio offers repeatable results, which means that it's all to easy to create an image using trial and error, patiently shooting over and over until the desired result is obtained. And those who shoot beautiful models have it even easier as the model does the majority of the creative work. All the photographer has to do is patiently push a small, round button. Is that a fair assessment of studio work? Of course it isn't.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 11:03:37 PM by ckimmerle »

Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Wow, Rob, that's rather insulting. Do you really think that landscape photography is simply sitting around waiting for the light to change? That the success of John Sexton or Michael Kenna or Charles Cramer is due to solely to their patience? Or that all I do is head of into the nether regions and....wait? Really? I can argue those working in the studio actually have it easier than those of us working in the field. A studio offers repeatable results, which means that it's all to easy to create an image using trial and error, patiently shooting over and over until the desired result is obtained. And those who shoot beautiful models have it even easier as the model does the majority of the creative work. All the photographer has to do is patiently push a small, round button. Is that a fair assessment of studio work? Of course it isn't.

Not meant to be insulting at all - just the unadorned reality of it. So what does Kenna do apart from look for dull subjects and use a loooooong exposure?

The studio shooter: yes, repeating until it's right is very much part of the creative process; did you imagine da Vinci got it right on the first daub? Why do you think all those guys prepare preliminary sketches?

As for models - yes indeed they do a huge part of it - but only because they are coaxed into something better than just sitting, standing or lying there. Look, we all like to believe our input is the greratest part of everything, but mostly it's not - we just happen to bring along the tools that allow something else to get captured on film or sensor.

You mentioned your own photography: as you well know I'm rather partial to it. That doesn't mean that I inject it with a mysticism that even you probably never suspected it of having. Russ's stuff also tickles my fancy, but how do you differentiate between a good sense of timing and creativity, or would you say they are the same thing?

Unfortunately, the more I think about photography, the less I become inclined to believe that any of it transitions into art. What I think is really happening is that I/we see the clear differences between very good practitioners and the not so good, and then we search for a word with which to describe the better and we settle for art.

But insulting? No, certainly not. I would rather remain silent than offer you or anybody else here offence. It's not my scene; but then neither is kissing ass.

Re.car tuners: if I could find a bodyshop that paints a panel without spraying added primer onto good surfaces that were supposed to have been properly masked off, then I'd call them anything they wanted to be called, artists included!

The hours I've spent trying to polish exactly those tiny blobs of grey off the blue must well outstrip the time the spray 'artist' spent applying new blue on old Rusty! Then, as nothing progressive was happening despite my labour, I resorted to using a 50mm enlarging lens as a loup and, taking a scalpel, I attempted to remove a single droplet that way. I soon realised that primer doesn't simply sit on the surface: it appears to eat into and replace the original paint - removing that tiny drop left bare metal.

....but how do you differentiate between a good sense of timing and creativity, or would you say they are the same thing?

Almost everything about artistic photography depends on "timing", whether it be shooting models, street scenes, portraits or landscapes. If our timing is off, we risk missing the desired facial expressions, body positions, juxtapositions or light. The frame is worthless. "Timing" is NOT the antithesis of "creativity", it's simply another consideration towards the same goal. So yeah, timing plays a part in landscape photography, but it would be wrong to assume that it's the primary consideration. I would even go as far as to say that timing plays an unimportant role, taking a backseat to personal vision and creativity and message.

The studio shooter: yes, repeating until it's right is very much part of the creative process; did you imagine da Vinci got it right on the first daub?

Sounds an awful lot like what you earlier described as "editing"

Look, I don't personally take offense at what you said. You have your opinion, and I respect that. However, shooting landscape makes me happy, calms me, and fulfills something deep in my soul. That surely could not happen if all I did was wait for the right light.

Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Rob, I think you are unduly focused on how a photograph is made, a process, rather than end-result. For me, it is the end-result that determines the creativity or artistic impact, not the process. Ultimately, it is the viewer who perceives it as art or creative, and he/she does not necessarily know or care how much effort went into it.

Ultimately, it is the emotional impact the end-result creates, and a landscape can have it just as much as any other genre (at least for some people, though not you and Russ). You call Kenna's landscapes "dull", I, however, call them sublime, zen-like and they deeply affect me on an emotional level.

Russ would accept landscapes only as a background for humans... I would dare to suggest that landscapes are anyway ultimately about humans, even when they are not directly present. Viewers are, however, always present, and they project their emotions into the image in front of them. What I see in Kenna's work is desolation, solitude, "splendid isolation", quiet desperation, subdued elegance, etc., and it all speaks more about me, of course, making those "dull" landscapes ultimately very human.

Rob, I think you are unduly focused on how a photograph is made, a process, rather than end-result. For me, it is the end-result that determines the creativity or artistic impact, not the process. Ultimately, it is the viewer who perceives it as art or creative, and he/she does not necessarily know or care how much effort went into it.

Ultimately, it is the emotional impact the end-result creates, and a landscape can have it just as much as any other genre (at least for some people, though not you and Russ). You call Kenna's landscapes "dull", I, however, call them sublime, zen-like and they deeply affect me on an emotional level.

Russ would accept landscapes only as a background for humans... I would dare to suggest that landscapes are anyway ultimately about humans, even when they are not directly present. Viewers are, however, always present, and they project their emotions into the image in front of them. What I see in Kenna's work is desolation, solitude, "splendid isolation", quiet desperation, subdued elegance, etc., and it all speaks more about me, of course, making those "dull" landscapes ultimately very human.

Rob, I think you are unduly focused on how a photograph is made, a process, rather than end-result. For me, it is the end-result that determines the creativity or artistic impact, not the process. Ultimately, it is the viewer who perceives it as art or creative, and he/she does not necessarily know or care how much effort went into it.

Ultimately, it is the emotional impact the end-result creates, and a landscape can have it just as much as any other genre (at least for some people, though not you and Russ). You call Kenna's landscapes "dull", I, however, call them sublime, zen-like and they deeply affect me on an emotional level.

Russ would accept landscapes only as a background for humans... I would dare to suggest that landscapes are anyway ultimately about humans, even when they are not directly present. Viewers are, however, always present, and they project their emotions into the image in front of them. What I see in Kenna's work is desolation, solitude, "splendid isolation", quiet desperation, subdued elegance, etc., and it all speaks more about me, of course, making those "dull" landscapes ultimately very human.

Very beautifully put, Slobodan. "You to your fancy and me to my Nancy," as the old lady said when she kissed her cow. Exactly. It's all subjective. But I wouldn't say I'd accept landscape only as a background for humans. I'd say rather that in many cases I'd accept the humans -- or their artifacts -- as background for the beauty of the landscape. And you're right, humans always are present in a landscape -- at least as viewers. If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there, does it make a sound? If a landscape's exists and no one's there to view it, is it beautiful? Without humans neither landscape nor any other image has meaning. I see the desolation, solitude, "splendid isolation," quiet desperation... in Kenna's work too. But I see those things most of all in his pictures of Auschwitz and Birkenau, where all those emotions are there, along with horror. Taken as a whole there's a lot more of humanity than plain landscape in Kenna's work.

Here's a "landscape" from a quick walk this afternoon -- shot with a 300mm lens to emphasize space. It's my kind of landscape, and the young couple are part of the bright green of spring shoots.

"What I see in Kenna's work is desolation, solitude, "splendid isolation", quiet desperation, subdued elegance, etc., and it all speaks more about me, of course, making those "dull" landscapes ultimately very human."

Slobodan, you said it yourself: that's about you and not really the image which may simply trigger your own mental inclinations. I understand all to clearly about 'quiet desperation' - I'm of mixed nationalities and know that it's an emotional state not solely connected to nor triggered by immediate conditions; it's more a natural predisposition. Lot's of northern middle European peoples share it.

I can get those blues by walking along the coast with not an image in sight, without seeing the next step in front of my nose, without visual trigger: it's something that lives inside me and, I suspect by dint of the fact that you recognize it and its relations so well, within you too.

"Rob, I think you are unduly focused on how a photograph is made, a process, rather than end-result."

Of course that's where the creativity exists or does not; anything else is the viewer's reaction which depends on his ability to understand, not the photographer's to show. I would hesitate to put creativity or its measurement within the control of the viewer - if so, any old thing can become art and the best painter, poet or snapper but a pawn in the viewer/listener's mind, and who is to evaluate the quality of that viewer? This sentiment probably reflects my views stated elsewhere in LuLa that people shouldn't ask others for critique since only they know what's right for them...

""Timing" is NOT the antithesis of "creativity", it's simply another consideration towards the same goal."

Absolutely, Chuck, that's all it is; creativity, for me, implies putting something together that otherwise doesn't exist. No landcape shooter can do that unless he believes that an excavator or twig cutter is a creative tool.

"Sounds an awful lot like what you earlier described as "editing"

And so it most certainly is, but it's editing of something that only the photographer has created, put together by himself, and that's where the creativity lies, not in making decisions which all graphics entail.

I repeat: I see nothing wrong with and also wish I had a better ability for shooting landscape than I do; it would make my model-bereft life a hell of a lot more satisfactory, but I'm afraid I simply can't force myself to believe I think it worth the effort. I just don't see the creative juices flowing though I certainly do see and experience the exercising of the practical/technical ones on the rare occasions when I go there.

Look, as I wrote earlier, I have/had no intention of causing offence or hurt; I'm simply telling you the way I see it, and it could well be my loss that things strike me that way.